Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her son that the council had decided to discontinue their consideration of the complaints that she had submitted.

During our consideration of the matter we obtained information from the council and, based upon this, we decided it was not appropriate for us to consider the matter further.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the council's handling of a building warrant and completion certificate issued for their property in 2001. Their concerns related to the foul drainage and surface water drainage systems at the property. Mr and Mrs C complained that the completion certificate should not have been issued as the drainage system built did not comply with the building warrant. In particular, they complained that the drainage system was not wholly contained within their property. They also complained about the council's handling of their representations.

During our investigation we were satisfied that the council had considered and had responded to the issues raised by Mr and Mrs C. They had explained that changes could be made to the plans without the need for an amendment to the building warrant, as long as the new layout complied with the relevant regulations, and that the building regulations did not require drainage systems to be wholly contained within individual properties. The council confirmed that it was the professional judgement of officers that the requirements of the building regulations had been met, and that the revised drainage had been inspected and tested. We were also satisfied that the council had considered and responded to Mr and Mrs C's representations.

Summary

Mr C applied for listed building consent to replace the original sash and case windows and skylights with double-glazed units of the same design. The owners of a neighbouring property also applied for consent for similar changes. Mr C complained that, whilst his neighbours were quickly granted permission to upgrade their windows, his application was rejected. He did not feel that the council considered his application fairly, or on a consistent basis with his neighbours' application.

Our investigation found that the two applications could not be directly compared. The neighbouring property's windows had been replaced in the past with units that were not in keeping with the original design of the building. Guidance issued by Historic Scotland promotes the preservation of original designs and materials and the council, appropriately, approved the neighbour's plans to reintroduce windows that were of a similar design to what would originally have been used. In Mr C's case, the council were not convinced that his windows could not be refurbished and kept in their original form. We were satisfied that on more than one occasion they invited Mr C to provide evidence that replacement was required, but he was unable to do so.

Mr C had pointed out that he appealed the council's decision to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA), and it was ultimately overturned. The DPEA decided that the Historic Scotland guidance did not have to be applied rigorously in Mr C's case, as his application provided an opportunity to bring uniformity back to an arrangement of windows of mixed design. We viewed this, however, as an example of the planning system working effectively, rather than of the council acting inappropriately. Although there was an initial misunderstanding about the age of some of the windows, we did not find that this affected the council's decision, and we found no evidence that it was based on flawed or incorrect information. Rather, it was based on and supported by Historic Scotland's guidance.

Summary

Mr C had lived in his parents' council house for many years with his wife (Mrs C), but did not become the tenant until after his father died in February 2007. This was after the modernised right to buy a council house was introduced in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. This reduced the maximum discount that could be given (to people who became tenants after September 2002) to 35 percent or £15,000, whichever was less. When Mr C took over the tenancy he asked a council officer if he could apply to buy the house. She wrongly told him that as a new tenant with a modified right to buy, he would have to wait five years. Four years later, in 2011, Mr C wrote to a senior housing officer asking again about this. In replying, the senior officer repeated the first officer's error that Mr C had to wait five years before applying. Seven months after that, Mr C discussed the matter with a housing manager, but they did not correct the previous misinformation. The council then began a consultation exercise on designating the whole of the council's area as having pressured area status (removing a tenant's general right to buy under the modernised scheme) and this came into place on 1 February 2012. Under these circumstances, should they wish to sell a house, the council have to apply to Scottish Ministers for consent for a voluntary sale.

Mr C then found out that he could have applied to buy his home as soon as he became a tenant. He formally complained to the council that he had been given incorrect information three times, and that the general right to buy had since been removed. They upheld his complaint; and eventually agreed with Mr C that he would allow access to have his home valued, and that they would be prepared to make the case for consent to sell to him at the £15,000 maximum discount with an allowance for rent paid from March 2011. Mr C, however, thought that the remedy for his complaint did not go far enough and that the allowance for rent should extend back to when he became the tenant, and brought the complaint to us. We upheld his complaint, and our recommendation reflects Mr C's concerns about the redress he had been offered.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• after first obtaining Mr C's agreement and a supporting statement from him, present a case to Scottish Ministers for consent for a voluntary sale based on the estimated 26 February 2007 market value, with discount of £15,000 and an allowance for rent paid to date of completion of sale; and
• in the event that the Scottish Ministers do not consent to any sale of the property as outlined in recommendation one above, that the council make an ex-gratia payment to Mr and Mrs C to reflect the terms of the loss they have incurred financially, this being the rent paid from 26 February 2007 to date.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had incorrectly advised him about his entitlement to council tax exemption and had not administered his application for an exemption properly. Mr C told us he had purchased a house from a builder but that the building work on the property had not been completed. After buying the property, Mr C told the council that he would not be able to move in until works were complete and requested that the appropriate exemptions to council tax be applied. The council said that Mr C did not meet the criteria for a council tax exemption because more than twelve months had elapsed between the last day of the previous occupancy and the date of his entry into the property.

Mr C complained to us that he had complied with advice from the council, but that the evidence he had submitted in support of his application for an exemption had been ignored. He said that they rejected his application, referring to a category he had not applied for; had not acknowledged the contradictions in the advice he had received, nor had they accepted that his documentation had not been processed.

Our investigation found that Mr C had made two council tax exemption applications under different criteria. The council had considered both of these in good time, and had correctly applied the council tax (Exemption Dwellings) (Scotland) Order 1997 and the council tax exemption procedures. We found no evidence that they had provided Mr C with incorrect and misleading advice, or that his applications had been administered inappropriately. We also found they had responded in good time to Mr C's initial complaint, although there was a delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2. Although we did not uphold Mr C's complaints, we made a recommendation about this delay, noting that the council had apologised to Mr C for this before he brought his complaint to us.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• examine the circumstances for the delay in response to Mr C's stage 2 complaint (which was sent to a general mail box) and advise the Ombudsman on the steps taken to avoid such a recurrence.

Summary

Mr C complained that the road outside his property was flooding in moderate to heavy rainfall, and that this was affecting his property. He said that the council were failing to keep the road drains free of debris in his area.

When we made enquiries to the council about this, we found that they had taken appropriate action to address the problem, and we were satisfied that the complaint had been resolved.

Summary

Mr C is a landlord of a property classed as a house of multiple occupancy. When he asked the council to uplift bulk waste he says he was told that he had to pay for the service, as his premises were commercial. Mr C disputed this and said that he paid council tax and if his premises were being classed as commercial he should have been paying business rates. He told us that it took the council three months to respond to his enquiries and complaints about the matter, and he still did not have a satisfactory explanation. He complained to us about the classification of his property and about the council's complaints handling.

We found that the council had not in fact classified Mr C's property as commercial, and we did not uphold that complaint. We did find, however, that he had been given misleading information that caused him to believe this.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about the council's complaints handling. We noted that they had written to him apologising for the delay in providing their written response, and that the information he had been given about a charge was inaccurate. They confirmed that there would be no charges involved in arranging a bulk uplift. They also arranged for the correct procedural information to be given to senior management at the call centre he had contacted, which was to be communicated to all staff dealing with the public to ensure that customers are accurately advised in future.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that call centre staff are reminded of how to deal appropriately with complaints; and
• apologise to Mr C for the poor service he received from the call centre.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of a local action group about the council's handling of a planning application to build on a site occupied by a commercial property. Mr C said the council unreasonably failed to implement a planning clause requiring replacement of a tree; failed to respond appropriately to concerns about the protection of another tree; and unreasonably failed to obtain information on the appearance of proposed garage doors. He also said the council wrongly claimed that, at a Scottish Government Reporter's meeting, the roads department representative did not support a proposal for planters along the pavement at the front of the new building; and that the council unreasonably delayed in responding to letters about the development.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. He explained that the council could not have used the planning condition to require the replacement of the tree as it was not located in the application site, so we did not uphold this complaint. However, he said that the council could have used different provisions to require another company (that owned the land where the tree was located) to replace it. We were not satisfied that the council took appropriate steps to secure the replacement of the tree, or that they took all appropriate steps to safeguard the other tree. In both cases, we were also critical of the council's failure to provide this office with actual evidence of their actions, and we made recommendations to address all these failings.

Our adviser explained that no public consultation was required about the detail of the garage doors and the council's planning officer was entitled to deal with this under delegated powers. On the matter of what was said at the Scottish Government Reporter's meeting, there was insufficient objective evidence of what the roads department representative actually said. We did not uphold these complaints.

We upheld the complaint that the council delayed in providing information to the action group and local councillors on the health of the second tree, and in responding to Mr C's complaint, and we also criticised the standard of their response.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• make relevant staff aware of our findings on the complaints about the trees;
• ensure that, as a consequence of this complaint, staff in future keep full records of their actions as detailed by our adviser;
• confirm to the Ombudsman when replacement trees will be planted; and
• issue Mr C with a written apology for failing to respond to a letter within a reasonable time and for failing to address the new issues raised.

Summary

Mr C accepted the tenancy of a sheltered home, which he said required some upgrading as the bath was not suitable for him and he wanted to have a shower fitted. He said that although he contacted the occupational therapy service in February 2012, and was told that an appointment would be made to assess his needs, the service did not contact him. He also said that when he called to enquire about the appointment he was told it had been overlooked and that it would not be possible to make an appointment for him until near the end of May 2012. As he had to vacate his current property by 1 June 2012, he decided to arrange for the bathroom to be upgraded himself, including the removal of the bath and the installation of a shower. When, on completion, he asked for financial assistance towards the costs involved, this was refused as no assessment had been carried out and a retrospective recommendation could not be made.

Our investigation found no evidence that Mr C's assessment had been overlooked. We found that an occupational therapist had phoned him in April 2012 to say that he was on the waiting list for an assessment but this could not be completed until he was in the property. He was advised of the procedures and potential waiting times for an assessment, and the therapist also explained that his medical conditions would be taken into consideration but it would be his functional ability that would determine what would be provided, and in the meantime he could maintain hygiene by washing. As we were satisfied that the council had made him fully aware of the process that needed to be undertaken before a shower could be considered for him, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Ms C said that her elderly parents' home had been burgled twice in the last 18 months and she was very unhappy with the council's response to the situation. She said that council staff had misinformed her father by giving various reasons why they would not fit locks to his windows to prevent further burglaries. She was particularly annoyed at the refusal as she said the tenant's handbook advises that all accessible windows should be locked using a key locking mechanism.

Our investigation found that the council's repairs and maintenance policy explains that the fitting of additional locks is the tenant's responsibility. This is also reflected in the tenant's guide to repairs and maintenance policy which Ms C's parents would have been given when they took up the tenancy. We were satisfied that section 2.12 of the tenant's handbook, which refers to ensuring all accessible windows are fitted with key-operated locks, was for advice and information only. We did not uphold the complaint.